General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Ryan Chapman
comments

Comments by "" (@soulcapitalist6204) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

Previous
3
Next
...
All

Leaching off Engels is probably overplayed. Marx was paid through his party, his own newspaper, a New York newspaper, dividends from stocks he bought in UK, etc. I doubt guilt emits from it rather than hubris. He lived like a politician.
1
Luckily Marx and marxism are marxist politics and marxist philosophy and marxist economics and marxist sociology - a side show - and can be completely ignored for lacking any redeemable value, whatsoever, to modern politics, philosophy or economics. Just like today, Marx had to compose and present something novel, true and rational to be taken seriously, whereas all marxian economics is recycled from a wastebin of disproven economic theory from 20-50 years prior to his debuting them. Marx is a deliberate parody - demagoguery - of philosophical standards like socratic rationality, political standards like human rights and freedoms and self-government and economic standards like proof and mathematic basis and economies as predictable phenomenon.
1
@lifecloud2 Ideas like property rights are considered inalienable on a basis of standing. If one is capable of something and nobody has standing to challenge it with a grievance, that right is reserved by the capable party. Hence, the line between murder and killing in self defense is the standing of the killer to defend his own life where another had no standing to threaten it.
1
@lifecloud2 Natural law is what I am describing. You are confused so I detected that and educated you about the notion of inalienability and natural right. These are not in lawbooks, but natural, on the basis I describe above. Speciating property is not natural and is a radical ideological excuse to abrogate human rights. That is precisely how your two bit bargain basement socialist philosophy attempts to justify personal versus private property.
1
@lifecloud2 What a ripoff. You got a bachelors in political science, you say? You have no idea what natural rights are nor how to use a dictionary.
1
@kohdicraig5179 You have got to be kidding. Marx is an antisemitic bigot in judenfrage. His entire thesis is that Germany should adopt the economic posture 3rd Reich took. Clearly you haven't even read it.
1
This is correct. As Proudhon regarded bourgeoisie "jews and barons" Marx's usage of bourgeoisie during March Revolution was racist dogwhistling.
1
Marx was a revolutionary. No position of Marx's reached the socratic standard of philosophy. He was a sophist fallacy artist and not any philosopher. As a revolutionary he indeed sought totalitarian and authoritarianian role of state and envisaged himself atop it: "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations."
1
 @kohdicraig5179 Bootlicking refers to socialists, fool. It's about licking government (socialism/communism) and military (anarchism) boots. You guys are so sad and confused.
1
Well, you learned that conflating fascism and national socia)ism is controversial, but actually it is wrong and historically inaccurate and not merely controversial.
1
@MikeGreenwood51 But Mussolini gave away where Hitler and Lenin/USSR expropriated. These can't be rolled together as they are opposite treatments. At least that's one of many issues with Fascism entailing philosophy other than Italy's.
1
So full of shit. There's no distinction between commercial and other private property, except in marxist ideology. This ideology is unethical because the state determines the personal nature of property in an arbitrary way which is reserved to the property owner by human rights conventions like UNCHR. As for you idiots claiming Marx was not crystal clear concerning state capitalist political economy and brutal totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorship, you can read his Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee, respectively, and stfu.
1
Personal and private property are the same. Marxists call for an end to the free discretion of property as a right by calling for autocratic dictatorship of property as a privilege with these inane and arbitrary boundaries. Hence, inherent in Marx's and other socialist approaches is a dictator prohibiting private property on some arbitrary standard which is contrary to society's plural discretion on what property is in the first place.
1
@inovakovsky That's an arbitrary dictatorial assertion versus my freedom to call whatever I want private property. This is a human right - assets and commercial property - per conventions like UNCHR and EUCHR and obviously United States Constitution.
1
@inovakovsky The basis on profit is arbitrary. Before you speciate property, whatsoever, a disposition as to who may speciate property is made and to what end. In the marxian notion, autocratic government force speciates property on the arbitrary basis of profit as opposed to purple color or visibility in dark conditions - some completely arbitrary basis. In ethical political science and sociology, speciation of private property is a human right. This lends to plural society rather than brutal dictatorship like Marx's proposal.
1
@inovakovsky That does not make ending capitalism or indexing profit any less arbitrary, guy. Consider studying some real political science and economics rather that Marx's pseudointellectual bollocks. When you get that far, you will recognize that capitalism is the free right of association and unqualified private property - freedom from socialist and feudal dictators with ignorant ideas.
1
@inovakovsky You can also look up what arbitrary means.
1
The conflation of nazism and italian fascism does oversimplify what fascism was and takes the common emotional analysis of the matter instead of the technical method of primary source historians who recognized the distinctions between the 3 experimental approaches to political economy - marxist communism, national socialism and italian fascism. The potsdam conference approach treats these as evils, attaches emotional appeals and obfuscates that any philosophy supported these movements or that those philosophies can be generalized under "evil" We'll do this all again without the granular detail contributed by those who studied especially 3rd Reich - Avraham Barkai, Charles E. Noyes, Otto Nathan, John Lucacz, Richard Overy, Ian Kershaw... they would contrast rather than combine these movements. They were right. This approach is wrong.
1
You can't buy land in a marxist state. You have problem? Gulag!
1
Wealth doesn't make people poorer, it makes them wealthier. You and Marx are out of touch with basic math, history and reality.
1
Working conditions are better now than 100 years ago, no matter where in the world you are referring to. This debunks any nonsense that market basis of economics makes conditions for economic participants worse. The opposite is true and Marx was made aware of this by trade unionists in Germany who fought the communists in March Revolution in order to protect the gains they were making under Germany's private industrialization of the mid 19th century.
1
@jamaldarwand1935 Wealth does not create poverty. If that was true, Cuba's isolation from western wealth would result in great domestic riches for Cubans, but nope. It is the opposite and Cubans are kept dirt poor by Cuban law and foreign policy. We can just look at empirical facts to conclude this is the case everywhere and not just where socialist idiots are ruining lives. The rate of wealth acquisition is several times higher in productive developing countries than in developed capitalist nations. You predict the opposite, that these countries become poorer. This type of "thinking" is why you guys have no credibility. Your inability to admit that working conditions have substantially improved also shows that your position is pure demagogy. That is, apart from your claims being factually wrong and easily debunked.
1
@jamaldarwand1935 This approach of socialist populist demagogy is not actually a method of economic analysis. As a result, the claims you make are falsehoods that may be easily debunked. Working conditions are measured independently from Elon Musk. Anywhere related to capitalist trade experiences improvement in working conditions and wages, 100% of the time. It is happening now and has always occured at any transition from mercantilism to capitalism. By embracing facts rather than being a bigot about people who are actually making working conditions far better like Musk, you can understand how the world works and why the highest wages and most legal and civil protections for workers exists in the United States. This is based on facts: worker's tort is an order of magnitude greater in the US per capita. OECD net adjusted median household and individual income is highest in the US vs any other major economy. US has the highest state spend per capita on both healthcare and worker safety. It's the capitalist approach.
1
This idea of attempting marxism under real democracy (liberal democracy) is impossible in a developed nation. This is due to the voting majorities in these states depending significantly on the economy, being fully aware of what will improve things a what couldn't possibly (like workplace democracy) and not caring to ruin the economy they depend on. On the other hand, peasants who have little or no connection to the economy are revolutionary. Along with soldiers, peasants have been the only marxianly revolutionary class in history, notwithstanding Marx claiming the reserve army was not revolutionary. The familiarity we have with our economy as private citizens exceeds Marx's understanding, especially 150 years into economics and basic algebra instruction. For example, modern people won't fall for cheap marxist demagogy which swaps the economics terms exploitation and employment in order to score emotional appeal. No significant percentage of working or literate people ever have valued this analysis in all history. Whereas there are no peasants to rile up in United States, there are suburban middle class Occupiers who live with mom and similarly have no economic knowledge or experience or connection. This is where we see a similar but worse showing for marxist partisans than they had in Germany in the 1850s. Making progress.
1
@christopherbettridge Employment is the correct term to substitute for Marx's exploitation pejorative. These are not two choices. They are the same. For all intents and purposes, one can use the term employment which preexisted Marx in place of Marx's exploitation. This is a clear case of semantic equivocation and not any theory. Stupid people and not economists are appealed to by name calling, especially when employment is widely desired.
1
@christopherbettridge Yes. Marxist demagogy also raised a question if he was joking because his ideas were such crude and obvious fallacy.
1
 @el5880 The marxian concept of petty bourgeoisie and unproductive workers encompasses these upper managers. They are strictly not proles which are all marxianly productive workers.
1
@elpapichulo4046 Extreme poverty is the only poverty. Other notions like relative poverty don't actually feature poorness and are just ways of trying to stir jealosy in wealthy nations. Socialist demagogy.
1
Marx disagreed with liberalism and poked fun at the core principles of it. Marx is a champion for totalitarianism and strictly not liberalism. "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." - Not a classic liberal... Karl Marx
1
@kellharris2491 The problem with your beliefs is 1) that Marx developed theory in the first place. Marx recycled debunked theory 20-50 years after they were in disuse in economics. 2) He made claims of a natural dialectic process and this was not supported by the philosophical standard of Socrates or even Hegel which preceeded his career. Marx's approach is not scientific because of fallacy like tautology and due to incompetent mathematics. As a political economist or political scientist, Marx fails a basic standard of logic by operating ad lapidem to academic minds in these fields, preexisting his career. This is what allows marxist political economy to present pseudotheory which does not confront conventions of human rights maintained scientifically by those with theory pertaining rights and role of state. He does so with 100% of his economic conjectures. None would pass a basic scrutiny of academic economists of his era and so he avoids the science and embraces the charlatanism and sophistry. 3) 100%, guy. There is not one contribution of marxism or Marx which is valuable to economics, sociology, social science, political science, industrial psychology, human resource management, econometrics, finance or international relations. Marx has posited pseudotheories in all of these fields, however - many clearly parodies (like "Capitalist [sic] Accumulation" from Kapital 3). Marxist ideas are all in a separate, heterodox and strictly not scientific clave of any discipline. Marxists are relegated to these fringes because dogmatic idealism is strictly not scientific by any measure.
1
Fascism isn't any of these ignorant claims about emotion. It's actually the way that Mussolini set up Italy's political economy and not the emotions or propaganda surrounding that. This means that there's nothing amorphous about fascism which allows it to be tossed around to describe opposition in general terms. Instead, when corporative policy is proposed (AHA individual mandate, too big to failouts), we can make a technical assessment of fascist policy in the US. These are like Mussolini's ideas and institutions. The appeal to emotion approach used in this video or which you propose would make any technical assessment like this impossible. We would be trying to qualify whether nation or excess patriotism featured in Obama's tone and this would make us imbeciles. That's not what fascism was, that's what European politics felt like.
1
 @renaissanceman9168 Fascism can't be an ideology if it is comprised by both fascist Italy and nazi Germany because these ideologies varied significantly.
1
 @musicaccount3340 Marxist communism calls for brutal dictatorship and the source of violence prescribed is centralized state monopoly on force.
1
@renaissanceman9168 That's not a historical claim (John Lucacz). National socialism, fascism and communism were each separate philosophical approaches to political economy and each had their own philosophical traditions. Combining these is a pejorative approach. The transposition of German soil concepts on Italy is incompetent due to Italian unification being a new concept for Italians, moreover being comprised of irreconcilable ethnicities which would foil ethnic nationalism and did so in Italy. Fascism is the political economic philosophy of Mussolini and Gentile. It isn't emotions about nation. Propaganda does not inform us about what these governments technically were. Instead, fascism is an institutional design of state with, labor and enterprise interoperation and this is incompatible with communism and national socialism. Because this technical definition of fascism is not captured by the generalization in this video or in the emotions of blood and land, I see the generalization as incompetent.
1
@paulbloemen7256 I agree with Mike here. Instead of this modern take where fascism is assessed through popular emotions of the period, a more competent analysis - the only competent analysis - is to treat national socialism and fascism as political economic philosophies of separate traditions and based on role of state and institutional design for economic regulation. If you do this, you can identify policy which is fascist and was fascist in these nations or on the present docket. This is actually the fear of politicians and why fascism has been taken from the technical frame Mussolini presented it with to the appeal to emotion and ad hitlerium fallacy promoted in this video (and by generally millennial leftist scholars). For example, the public mandate in US's AHA/Obamacare is classical fascism. The state applied its force for the enrichment of an economic sector which lobbied the state to make the case. This was presented through the deception that universal healthcare and universal mandate for individual pay to health insurance companies was the same. For example, Medicare for All of Sanders is socialism like the nazis and bolsheviks. Banning private pay for healthcare is presented as if like National Health Service in UK, whereas this is an obvious deception. There are no bans like this anywhere in Europe. Europe is not socialist. We defeated the nazis. An economy comprised of policy like this will present the emotional veneer this video's shallow analysis reads in nazi Germany and fascist Italy. It would be too late to use this emotional analysis because the fascism or nazism or bolshevism is already in place by the time it's palpable.
1
@ryebread3417 You are an ignoramus. Marx directly associates dictatorship of the proles with communism in the one place he ever used dictatorship of the proles. Marx clearly prescribes state capitalism as early stage communism (Critique of the Gotha Program) and prescribes politburo dictatorship unequivocally (Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee).
1
@t00bgazer You've not read basic Marx, guy.
1
He talked about economy, almost exclusively. He was not a sincere, innumerate or important economist to the actual study of economies. He was one of the most influential to ever talk about economy.
1
The withering of the state is a utopian - impossible - conclusion to Marx's brutal state capitalism. There is no way that the standard Marx set for this could be achieved since it required fundamental changes in human nature in his view. This was simply a gaslighting device used in marxist lit to court anarchists and apologize for the statism Marx's socialist contemporaries accused him of.
1
@BornTrespasser I have plenty of room. Karl Marx wrote down his theory. I read it. You did not.
1
@BornTrespasser It's called reading, guy. Yes. I see no possible society where "labor is the primary want" is possible, plausible or measurable in any future.
1
@BornTrespasser Well Karl Marx didn't make that a requirement for his claim of statelessness to come about, however, it is just as impossible and improbable.
1
Especially refreshing that he's not droning on and on about greed like tankie videos.
1
@dairallan It's not hard to grasp. CIA is openly a spy agency. Frankfurt School is openly a hope that propaganda and social engineering by intellectuals could support nihilism of economics.
1
@clem.3894 You propose that in early stage communism - "the socialist phase" - Marx prescribed a state controlled by workers and this is the opposite of what's proposed. Marx proposed a state informed by intellectuals who know the interests of workers and strictly no tolerance for workers' own ideation in their interest. The worker's councils affecting democracy in workplaces is the extent of democracy in Marx's proposal. Marx knew that your idea of any democratically steered state would result in steering towards social democracy and proposed institutional design to counteract democracy, not offer it: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."
1
@clem.3894 "No, Marx was not arguing for democracy to be thrown away...he is specifically referring to the two potential paths that the democrats might pursue in shaping the state's political structure" Marx was against the democrats, genius, and called for dictatorship. Only a non-reader of Marx could possibly mistake the communists or the workers for "the democrats", their opposition. These passages resulted in the destruction of menshevism by the bolsheviks. The second option would be a "one and indivisible republic" (recognize that from the literal US national anthem?) That was not an option of the democrats, stupid. The very prior statement is the advocacy of the democrats for federated republic. This is Marx providing the counter strategy for "the workers" who pursue dictatorship with only worker council democracy. United States is a "federated republic", dumbo. US is an anti-marxist institutional design and not marxist, guy. This needs to be said? "He believed that within this unified republic, the workers should strive for the concentration of political power in the hands of the state authority SPECIFICALLY under a democracy of the proletariat." Bullshit. It is dictatorship of the proletariat and it is clear that the dictatorship was not to be of the prole's choosing nor guidance... "...it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point..." "They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." This is crystal clear in Address. Part 3 of Critique of the Gotha Program is dedicated to Marx's disdain for workers leading their state because of their desire for social democracy: "And particularly in the case of a toiling people which, through these demands that it puts to the state, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!" more from you: "You state that "Marx knew that your idea of any democratically steered state would result in steering towards social democracy", which is entirely laughable to me. No, "social democracy" isn't democratic just because it has "democracy" in the name." Well, social/liberal democracy is the only standard of democracy. Of course you people think it is fascism since Stalin said so, but fascism was actually a dictatorship like what Marx called for. Marx never claimed that his ideas were a democratic state and considered it a dictatorial state. Marx called for the politburo system where workers control their workplaces in minutia while they operate in general at the command of central planners. They strictly did not have any sectorial representatives at the philosophical level as Marx aimed for class representation. "The chief offense does not lie in having inscribed this specific nostrum in the program, but in taking, in general, a retrograde step from the standpoint of a class movement to that of a sectarian movement." More of your bollocks... "You go on to claim that "Marx proposed a state informed by intellectuals who know the interests of workers and strictly no tolerance for workers' own ideation in their interest"--he never did such a thing lol." Marx called for the central committee of a single party of workers to be led by a lifetime intellectual leader (himself and later Lenin, Stalin, Krushchiev, Mao, Kim, etc): "At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations. The speedy organization of at least provincial connections between the workers’ clubs is one of the prime requirements for the strengthening and development of the workers’ party" "...an independently organized party of the proletariat" Your claims again: "You seem to be butchering the theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism, and specifically Lenin, which theorized the vanguard party leading the revolutionary movement. Lenin believed the working class, on its own, might not be able to develop a class consciousness and revolutionary leadership. Therefore, he thought that there should be a highly organized and disciplined party, composed of professional revolutionaries..." Tell me you have not read State and Revolution of Lenin without telling me you have not read State and Revolution of Lenin. I quote Marx to the effect of single party politburo above. In S&R, Lenin is sure to reference all of his theoretical basis in Marx's own writings. Marx is attributed politburo, above and the state capitalist political economy Lenin rolled out (per Critique of the Gotha Program, part 1)
1
@clem.3894 Marx argues against democracy in plain words. Your interpretation of Marx as imprecise language requiring subjective interpretation is falsified by actually examining the political economic institution Marx designed for communism. Both in Address and in The Civil War in France, Marx describes productive democracy via worker's councils without primacy of these councils to the state. This is what DPRK presents as democracy and it is a strict implementation of what is described in Address. If it was true that Marx cannot be interpreted literally as he intended, the only disclosure of details concerning his communist society would not be strictly and solely advocacy for autocratic government in enough detail that we know the political institution design of it. Whereas, I may substantiate marxian political economy as a centralized authoritarian and totalitarian approach directly (dialectically juxtoposed) to liberal democracy, you cannot in your wildest dreams ever quote Marx in support of political democracy, whatsoever. You could not quote Marx advocating freedoms. You cannot quote Marx respecting the decesis of working class while I can quote him berating it. This idea that Marx left his writing up to misinterpretation begs the question which Marx you were reading. Shit is too repetitive, consistent and precise for misinterpretation.
1
@Facerip Marxism is extreme because it calls for broad abrogation of human rights by authoritarian government. This is unwanted by any society, so marxism is extreme because a putsch of people who read Marx's extreme and heterodox views (mainly demagogy of economics) needs to be responsible for forcing it on society.
1
@ryebread3417 You are full of shit. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" directly describes "the early stages"of marxist communism which Marx labeled interchangeably with "socialism" and defined as "society based on the common ownership of the means of production". Dictatorship of the proletariate is described in detail as the state capitalist political economy under a centrally controlled stare with no elected state officials. All of this is in parts 1 and 4 of Critique of the Gotha Program and Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee.
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 Wolff can't escape state autocracy. He just avoids commentary on it, being more passive with his aggression than Marx. For example, he is no innovator as to worker cooperative modes, he aims for the state to force businesses to operate in a unilateral worker coop mode of production which is based on idealism of Marx - that is Marx's suggested approach - versus the materialism of citizens - ie the liberal democracy which capitalist modes are universally based on.
1

Previous
3
Next
...
All